Introduction

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In particular, the Supreme Court amended Bankruptcy Rule 2019 to clarify the disclosure required of certain parties in interest in a chapter 9 or 11 bankruptcy case.1 These amendments were drafted by a panel of bankruptcy judges and restructuring experts and are intended to resolve a split in decisions concerning the proper application of the current Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

Under the laws of the UK and Bermuda, solvent insurance companies that had ceased to write new policies have long been able to implement an orderly and expeditious run off of their businesses through court approved schemes of arrangement.

Introduction

Prior to 25 March 2011, there was no judicial decision in Ireland on whether the holder of a floating charge could validly improve its position in the order of priority of payments, vis-à-vis preferential creditors, in circumstances where its floating charge crystallises (i.e. converts into a fixed charge) prior to commencement of the winding up of a company.

On February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declining to modify the September 20, 2008 Sale Order that approved the sale to Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) of assets collectively comprising the bulk of the North American investment banking and capital markets business of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and certain of their affiliates (together “Lehman”).

InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.

The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.

The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:

In Re: Michael McLoughlin Pharmacy Ltd. The examiner sought the High Court’s approval for a scheme of arrangement which limited his liability for negligence. The secured creditor objected as a matter of principle because such limitations of liability had become commonplace in schemes. The secured creditor made it clear that there was no suggestion of any negligence by the examiner in the particular case.

The court considered:

InDellway and Ors. v National Asset Management Agency & Ors., a number of companies and Paddy McKillen appealed a decision of the High Court in relation to the purported acquisition of €2∙1 billion in loans to the appellant companies by NAMA.

The appeal was brought on five grounds:

The short answer to the title question is “no.” However, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank” or the “Act”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has limited “back-up” authority to place into liquidation an insurance company that (i) meets certain criteria as respects the nature of its business and (ii) is essentially “too big to fail.” This liquidation proceeding would, however, still be under the relevant state insurance liquidation laws.1